The U.S. Is Required To Bring George W Bush & Donald Rumsfeld Before A Court! U.N. War Crimes, page 2

privacy

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 5 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 34 times

reply posted on 27-1-2009 @ 08:43 AM by centurion1211

Originally posted by jam321
The UN can't even prosecute its own.

So true!

Remember Kofi Annan - the U.N. Secretary General (highest UN official) and his son caught skimming oil for food aid money - which, if you think about it, could be a form of torture since people may have starved to death because of it.

George Bush is out of office, gone back to Texas. Time for all the Bush-o-phobes to realize that and either move on, or get a life in the first place. Besides, obama is already starting to create a nice little "track record" for himself. It will be an interesting 4 years before Americans come to their senses and throw him out like they did after the failed carter experiment.

[edit on 1/27/2009 by centurion1211]

reply posted on 27-1-2009 @ 09:07 AM by questioningall

reply to post by centurion1211

The thing about it, as UN Rep says in the video, there is "evidence" of our torturing and that Rumfield ordered it, so with the evidence, the U.S. is "required" to then prosecute anyone - who knowingly tortured - which is against the treaty signed by Reagan. Which is then an International law.

The fact is.... if we do not investigate and do not put those who tortured on trial, then all the other countries can go against the treaty also. In other words we will go to barbaric situations regarding all POWs.

reply posted on 27-1-2009 @ 09:46 AM by pieman

Originally posted by centurion1211
This is soooo short-sighted and quite naive.

You simply can't have the leaders of the U.S. or any other major country put on trial. Doing so would forever handcuff those leaders from ever making a tough decision.

good, as it should be, i think the leaders of the world should feel they can be held to account for doing horrible inhuman stuff like ordering torture and genocide or bringing their country to war under knowingly false pretenses.

do you believe they should be immune from prosecution no matter what they do?

[edit on 27/1/09 by pieman]

reply posted on 27-1-2009 @ 10:07 AM by Srvyr1969

The trial of Bush will never happen. All or part of the lackies mabey so. There are so many ways of telling people that this is good for our standing in the international community, but that does not matter. Throughout the history of this country there has been the same thing over and over. Torture, killings, illegal activities. These things are mere childs play to the few highest secretive people in the world. Not that the Bin Ladens were family friends (CNN interviews) nor the fact that the Bushes vouched for Osama to attend school here that most US citizens can not even attend (matter of public record). But to single out Bush would mean reliving every other presidents wrong doings. Do I think the atomic bomb was bad and cruel...yes. Did it save our soldiers lives...yes. Do I think torture is wrong...yes. Did it saves soldiers lives...YES. To punish our ex president would be to rank him in the same category as the leaders whom committed genocide in Africa all in the name of protecting their country. I do not like Bush nor did I vote for him. But instead of looking for someone to throw under the bus, mabey the EU should clean up their own back yard first. Thank you for a very great and thought out topic though and under no circumstances do I intend my opinion to overshadow what you are trying to say.

reply posted on 27-1-2009 @ 10:08 AM by Europe

The US is required to do what ever it feels like doing, the same goes for every other country.

reply posted on 27-1-2009 @ 10:27 AM by Iamonlyhuman

Originally posted by questioningall

Originally posted by pieman
yes, but unless it's specifically against the law in the US before now, they'll have to make it law now and they'll have a hard time prosecuting GWB and co. retrospectively.

You have to watch the video, it IS against the law in the U.S., due to the fact that Reagan signed a treaty, that makes it International law and U.S. law.

He said it is a REAL requirement for any country to put on trial "anyone" who has committed torture, condoned and ordered it.

He says, all the people who "did" the torture, those who "ordered" the torture, those who "condoned" the torture.

He said there IS direct evidence that Rumsfield is the one who ordered it.

The U.S. does not have a choice in the matter, if they don't - then the Obama administration then is a culprit to the "condoning" of torture.

Regardless of any of this, do you really think that Obama will put Bush on trial considering that Bush was president longer than Obama has even been in politics. What kind of "friends" do you think Bush has? What kind of "evidence" do you think Bush has collected on Obama or his people? What kind of "mess" do you think Bush could make of Obama's tenure as president?

Seriously, think about this... do you REALLY think Obama is the type of person to do what's right over personal/professional/economic gain?

reply posted on 27-1-2009 @ 10:51 AM by centurion1211

Originally posted by questioningall
reply to post by centurion1211

The fact is.... if we do not investigate and do not put those who tortured on trial, then all the other countries can go against the treaty also. In other words we will go to barbaric situations regarding all POWs.

OMG

What world do you live in? Tell me you don't know that what you're afraid isn't already happening in all the other countries, and that the U.S. is the least likely country to commit these so-called acts of torture.

reply posted on 27-1-2009 @ 10:55 AM by centurion1211

Originally posted by pieman

do you believe they should be immune from prosecution no matter what they do?

[edit on 27/1/09 by pieman]

I believe in setting precedents and in 'slippery slopes'. You do this to one leader and how long before any and every group with a real or imagined axe to grind files charges against obama and/or any other world leader.

Think about it. I mean really think about what you'd be setting all world leaders up for in your zeal to nail Bush.

Remember, too, the Law of Unintended Consequences ...

reply posted on 27-1-2009 @ 11:05 AM by pieman

reply to post by centurion1211

hang on one second there, if this is actually against the law in the US, as has been alleged, then there is no slippery slope, there is simply legal and illegal.

there is no reason, in my opinion, for the leader of any country to not be required to abide by the laws of the country they have been elected to lead.

let's not fudge the issue with wishy washy slippery slope arguments, in simple terms, if any politician can be shown to have broken the law they should be arrested and bought to trial.

reply posted on 27-1-2009 @ 11:17 AM by centurion1211

Originally posted by pieman
reply to post by centurion1211

hang on one second there, if this is actually against the law in the US, as has been alleged, then there is no slippery slope, there is simply legal and illegal.

So far, we only have the OP's opinion that there is a law we "inherited" from the UN because Reagan signed some treaty.

Someone want to research and post the appropriate law? Until - if and when - we get to see this law, then it's all supposition and wishful thinking by the Bush-o-phobes at best.

reply posted on 27-1-2009 @ 11:25 AM by stikkinikki

The elected rulers of our world are citizens of our world. They are not kings and they do not have special rights. If they broke the law they are subject to prosecution for breaking that law just like every other citizen. I don't see how this is a problem for any American citizen to accept this.

reply posted on 27-1-2009 @ 11:28 AM by pieman

i won't claim credit fot this reasearch, i lifted it wholesale from Glen Greenwald. it does seem to be against the law in the US, but please check it if you doubt it.

CONVENTION AGAINST TORTURE and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (signed by the U.S. under Ronald Reagan):

Article 2

1. Each State Party shall take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction.

2. No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat or war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.

3. An order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification of torture. . . .

Article 4

1. Each State Party shall ensure that all acts of torture are offences under its criminal law. The same shall apply to an attempt to commit torture and to an act by any person which constitutes complicity or participation in torture.

Article 7

1. The State Party in territory under whose jurisdiction a person alleged to have committed any offence referred to in article 4 is found, shall in the cases contemplated in article 5, if it does not extradite him, submit the case to its competent authorities for the purpose of prosecution.

Article 15

Each State Party shall ensure that any statement which is established to have been made as a result of torture shall not be invoked as evidence in any proceedings, except against a person accused of torture as evidence that the statement was made.

Ronald Reagan, 5/20/1988, transmitting Treaty to the U.S. Senate:

The United States participated actively and effectively in the negotiation of the Convention. It marks a significant step in the development during this century of international measures against torture and other inhuman treatment or punishment. Ratification of the Convention by the United States will clearly express United States opposition to torture, an abhorrent practice unfortunately still prevalent in the world today.

U.S. Constitution, Article VI:

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

[edit on 27/1/09 by pieman]

reply posted on 27-1-2009 @ 11:35 AM by cautiouslypessimistic

Bush will not be tried in the U.S. It sets too dangerous a precident. You may see some of the PNAC on trial, but Bush wont be.

reply posted on 27-1-2009 @ 11:35 AM by centurion1211

reply to post by pieman

That's part of the treaty. Where's the corresponding U.S. law I asked about? And your reference to Article VI of the U.S. Constitution says the Constitution rules over all other laws. I think that especially means foreign (or UN) laws.

And as I mentioned before, how about if the UN and the rest of the world cleans up their own house first? No comments on that?

[edit on 1/27/2009 by centurion1211]

reply posted on 27-1-2009 @ 11:40 AM by pieman

all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

what do you not get?
reagan signed the treaty, according to the constitution, that makes it law. unless there are laws to the contrary, are there?

a

is no substitution for an actual fully fledged thought.

EDIT: lots of thoughts on the rest of the world and the UN cleaning house, start a thread in which that type of discussion isn't off topic and i'll discuss.

[edit on 27/1/09 by pieman]

reply posted on 27-1-2009 @ 11:48 AM by centurion1211

No, but it can be considered a form of 'shorthand' for a fully formed thought.

All I've been asking is were any laws passed that correspond with this treaty.

Oh, and did the Senate actually ratify this treaty?

Still, no one seems to want to consider what I've said about the Law of Unintended Consequences. And what will happen then to obama when pakistan, for example, decides to have him tried for war crimes for authorizing missile strikes against their territory where civilians were killed.

So eager to nail Bush that you are (using an old saying) throwing the baby out with the bathwater. So eager that you'll willingly give up U.S. sovereignty just to get Bush.

Sorry again for the shorthand, but that still seems really

to me.

[edit on 1/27/2009 by centurion1211]

reply posted on 27-1-2009 @ 11:53 AM by questioningall

Originally posted by centurion1211
reply to post by pieman

That's part of the treaty. Where's the corresponding U.S. law I asked about? And your reference to Article VI of the U.S. Constitution says the Constitution rules over all other laws. I think that especially means foreign (or UN) laws.

And as I mentioned before, how about if the UN and the rest of the world cleans up their own house first? No comments on that?

[edit on 1/27/2009 by centurion1211]

It is there in black and white, the treaty then is law. That is like the other treaties that have been signed by previous Presidents, once there is an international agreement, it then is taken to those countries and becomes law.

As the the vid shows, this is not just "anyone" saying the U.S. has an obligation to investigate and put on trial anyone who has been part of any torturing.

Also read in the treaty " no matter what the circumstance" torture is Forbidden from occuring.

There is proof and even Cheney has said in interviews, that they are the ones who ordered the torture. So he - himself - put it out there and admitted to knowing/condoning the torture.

reply posted on 27-1-2009 @ 12:00 PM by JohnnyCanuck

Originally posted by centurion1211
And as I mentioned before, how about if the UN and the rest of the world cleans up their own house first?

What I find rather tragic is that so many respond to a question of torture with some waffling about whether or not the rules really apply. Even to Americans.

Either it's ok or not. If it's ok, then it's also ok for Americans to be tortured. If not, then Americans are not allowed to do it either. Looks pretty simple to me.

reply posted on 27-1-2009 @ 12:21 PM by jam321

reply to post by questioningall

A treaty can not violate our bill of rights as guaranteed by the Constitution. Does the court the UN want to bring these guys into provide them with a speedy trial? Does it protect them from double jeopardy? Does it give them the right to remain silent, right from self-incrimination, right to confront their accusers, etc?

We are Americans and are guaranteed those rights. No treaty can take them away. If Bush was in their country and committed a crime then he would have to answer to their laws.

The true purpose of the Article VI Supremacy Clause is to designate the Constitution as the “super supreme” to which all other enactments — treaties, federal statutes, state constitutions or statutes — must conform. In keeping with the federalist structure of the Constitution, treaties can only be used to carry out the “few and defined” powers conferred upon the federal government; otherwise, they are, from a constitutional perspective, null and void.

www.jbs.org...

reply posted on 27-1-2009 @ 12:28 PM by LLoyd45

Obama will not allow Bush and his cronies to be prosecuted simply because it would open up the door for him to be prosecuted at some later date for similar reasons. Remember, these things are still going on, and Obama is the Commander in Chief now. Bush will receive a Presidential pardon if things get too hairy.

[edit on 27-1-2009 by LLoyd45]

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 5 >> ^^TOP^^